The bedrock assumption of the evolutionary or "old earth" paradigm is that the fossil record is a record of "deep time," lasting billions of years. Neither live germs nor fresh meat should last that long. Yet investigators have found both.
In 2000, a team of paleontologists made an astonishing find: salt-tolerant bacteria in a salt crystal supposed, by conventional dates, to be 250 million years old. Specifically, they found it in New Mexico's Salado Formation, at a depth of 1700 feet. The bacterium was not only live, but culturable. (Vreeland RH, Rosenzweig WD, and Powers DW. "Isolation of a 250 million-year-old halotolerant bacterium from a primary salt crystal." Nature. 407 (6806): 897-900, 2000. Cited here.)
But how could bacteria live that long? Even the hardiest of bacteria would never last for millions of years. Where did it get its energy? More recently, Lowenstein, Schubert, et al. speculated that algal cells found in association with the bacteria could have provided the energy they needed, in the form of glycerin and glycerol. But that assumption fails for two reasons:
- The algae themselves would need energy. They usually get that energy from light. But no sunlight could penetrate a salt layer 1700 feet below ground.
- By their own admission, Lowenstein and his team found only four culturable samples from a total of 900 sites. None of these four were from a site sufficiently similar to the New Mexico site.
Thus those germs did not survive for millions of years. Yet they very likely survived for thousands of years, i.e. the 4400 years that have passed since the Global Flood.
Nor is this the only sign. In 2005, Mary Schweitzer and her team first found a fossil of Tyrannosaurus rex that contained blood vessels, live blood cells, and other elements of soft tissue. Or, in other words, fresh meat. Sequencing of this tissue revealed proteins similar to those found in modern chickens. At least one skeptical investigator suggested that all that Schweitzer and her team had found was biofilm, or bacterial slime. But Schweitzer, undeterred, kept investigating, and found similar blood vessels, blood cells, and soft-tissue matrix in a specimen of a hadrosaur (Brachylophosaurus canadensis), nearly a year after the biofilm suggestion appeared.
Similar finds appeared later that year. This leads to the obvious question: how could fresh meat survive for millions of years? The answer: it could not.
These two classes of findings, the live germs and the fresh meat, further testify that fossils are not nearly as old as claimed, and furthermore, that the fossil layers are much more likely to be the same age and not separated by millions of years of time. In fact, the deposition of all the fossil layers occurred in one year: the Flood year, the 1656th year of the world.
Like this article? Want to be notified of more? Click Subscribe, above.
Comments
Hi Terry.
I've read your last articles and you appear to be disconnected from reality (for instance you keep writing about a "Flood" that actually never happened). I advise you to seek medical help, since it might be the symptom of a more serious pathology.
I've read your comments, and you appear to be disconnected from reality (for instance you keep saying that the Flood never occurred, though it absolutely did). I advise you to seek medical help, since it might by the symptom of a more serious pathology.
Nope, no such flood, Hurlbut. Defies physics in soooooo many ways - and is completely inconsistent with the geological evidence.
Of course, if you're saying your god is so mean, nasty and despicable as to give Man intellgence - and then leave lying around tons of evidence contradicting his fables - and then damn him to eternal torment for not seeing through the ruse....
Yes, medical help. Straight to the Gulag for you Terry for daring to question the unscientific assumptions of naturalism
@charlie
We have no problem with questioning evolution - you'll find this is actually required in the scientific method.
However, blathering rubbish, presenting irrelevant documents that are already dealt with in the literature, making unsupportable, illogical and outright contradictory claims, is not "questioning".
if terry bothered to put a valid point, supported by valid literature or valid data, then it would be addressed as such.
He has not. So it's not.
---"for instance you keep saying that the Flood never occurred, though it absolutely did"
Not that you've been able to demonstrate it here, Terry, nor ever address the numerous problems that were pointed out.
---"Straight to the Gulag for you Terry for daring to question the unscientific assumptions of naturalism"
Boom! Another creationist debunks themselves in just one sentence. Well done Charlie.
Standard Terry response again.
Roughly translated:
"I know you are, but what am I? Nah na na na naaaa naaaah!"
Flood never happened? The Egyptians weren't drowned in the Red Sea but in a little pond? - well that's a "miracle" in itself. It did happen and it's documented in the Greatest Story Ever Told.
Trust - Believe - Receive
What do you trust and believe in Derpity? And what are you receiving?
Again, Terry, you engage in poor examining.
I will not comment on the quip about the 250 million year old bacteria, since the original journal article in Nature isn't accessible and the article you're getting your information from is not a reliable or unbiased one.
I will call out your false claims on the 2005 finding of a Tyrannosaurus Rex with what you claim to be blood vessels, live blood cells, and other elements of soft tissue. That is a lie. The initial report said they LOOKED like that, but people that actually work in the field determined it to be collagen. That was an interesting find, but not a valid point in your preaching here.
No one was is claiming they found fresh meat. You're making a large strawman here, and I have to burn it down, because people take your articles seriously. If you read the articles you are sourcing, as I have, you have found that they did not find "successive" bone fragments of fresh meat. You would be lying to your readers. The actual article details how they used mass-spectrometry to obtain protein sequences from the bones of a 160-300 000 year old mastodon, and the Tyrannosaurus Rex previously mentioned. They found that peptide bonds are remarkably stable in some cases. This is nothing that spectacular, it's just something new that helps our understanding of these long extinct lifeforms.
Now, if you had any journalistic integrity, you would recant your statements, but I don't expect that from you.
Yep, this argument was already torn to shreds when Terry made it a few weeks ago but for those that missed it, this is a synopsis of the last 9 papers from Mary Schweitzer's group[:
Heme coupounds are identified in fossils, most likely from haemoglobin breakdown.
When the fossils were demineralized, microstructures appear - some that look like cells. Structures similar to birds bones are also found.
Some of the structures left from demineralized bones appear to possess collagen although in low concentrations.
Some protein sequences were found and even some protein fragments.
The protein sequences found robustly supports the bird-dinosaur clade.
So what were found were actually tiny fragments of protein once they had DISSOLVED THE ROCK. And one thing that Terry seems to gloss over is that the microstructures found support evolution.
---"I will call out your false claims on the 2005 finding of a Tyrannosaurus Rex with what you claim to be blood vessels, live blood cells, and other elements of soft tissue. That is a lie."
Yes it is. Made even worse by the fact that the rest of us already dealt with this a number of days ago. But lying is okay as long as they are lying for Jesus.
Hurlbut.
Why do you keep posting about things that you know nothing about?
hurlbut, you say billions of years, and then you say 250 million years
hulrbut, did you miss basic math at school?
hurlbut, seeds that are more than 2000 years old have been found, and grown.
hurlbut, bacteria can very easily be dormant.
oohhhhh, the flood. which left no traces. yes of course.
hurlbut, I'll let other, more qualified people destroy your references to Mary, but the fact remains, you know this is actually a disingenuous lie...the fact you keep bringing it up, even after being shown how ignorant and false it is, demonstrates to me, the world how disparate you creationist are to push your false, fabricated agenda.
hurlbut,
again, you lie.
again, you have no idea what you're talking about
again, you are simply to lazy, to weak, too inept to actually do the legwork.
You ARE the epitome of the lazy, ignorant creationist. I'm glad that I've been exposed to the depths of your extreme ignorance hurlbut, it has exemplified all that is reprehensible about your religion.
Well done hurlbut, for being the epitome of creationist stupidity.
Why don't you kids learn?
We've already thoroughly debunked your statements about Mary Schweitzer's findings in the T. rex bones when Hugene tried to sell that lie - why the need to hurl it out of your butt now?
As for the halotolerant bacterium, mutliple researchers have shown that it closely resembles existing modern bacteria and it is extremely unlikely to be 250 million years old - just modern bacteria living on old salt.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/pt50ey50xcty01n1/
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/18/6/1143.full
So wait.
not only does terry think that 250 million years old is "bilions", but that the whole article he's written is one big fat lie anyhow?
you're right pastf, the only reason he posts is to earn a dividend.
But at least it also gives us a chance to show how false hs is - every single time.
Pasta, what's the odds that we'll get the likes of Hugene and Hale claiming the likes of viable blood cells in the fossils or that the connection between dinosaurs and birds was make up after these findings?
Care to give odds ;-)
Even WITH your challenge... odds are better than the ones that we will make contact with ETs ... this week.
Thanks Terry, this was great. My husband has been digging up dinosaur bones for ages. We have a so many fossils and bones from various animals. He will love reading this article too. Will pass this on.
You should be giving those bones to paleontologists, so they can tell you the exact age of your findings, and if they are indeed dinosaur bones.
No 'Fresh Meat' I take it?
After reading pastaF's comment I looked around a little too.
This from the "Ancient DNA & Evolution Group, Centre for Ancient Genetics, Niels Bohr Institute & Biological Institute"
regarding terry's document:
"The authors claim the bacterium isolate to be as old as the formation itself, thereby nominating it to be the oldest viable organism ever recovered. Since then, both the age of the brine inclusion and the bacteria isolate itself have been questioned"
and more.
"Although the age of the brine from where [the bacteria] was isolated might, indeed, be 250 Ma, it does not necessarily mean that Bacillus strain 2-9-3 is of similar age. In fact, there are a number of both theoretical and empirical reasons to suggest otherwise."
I got these from the top hit when I put the reference into google, so I didn't have to work too hard. Clearly terry doesn't work AT ALL.
Maybe,, it's best to do a little deeper research into the more general context of your pivotal documents terry, before you go trumpeting about what it is you think scientists declare as fact or not.
More lies from terry.
more disinginuity from terry
It's really not going to end, is it?
One of Hurlbut's characteristics if picking the creobot interpretation for his links whenever possible.
But as you see, it generally takes very little effort to dig up the primary source material, if you know how - and invariably, you find that it has either been misrepresented or that he's only told part of the story.
One question that popped into my head is what is the temperature at that depth? A back of the hand guesstimate would be 54 degrees C. Would that be an energy source?
Bathtub - No, temperature alone is not an energy source - you need at minimum a temperature differential (and a means of exploiting it).
See other messages for the scientific skepticism about the age of the bacteria.
Terry, you managed to pass a tough freshman physical chemistry course at Yale (at least I think you passed it). You are not an idiot. But this article was truly sloppy, even lazy. You're smart enough to read the original literature pertaining to the claims about "dino blood" and 250 million year old halophiles and to report accurately what was done experimentally and what was concluded. Even without letting go of your odd religious beliefs you ought to be capable of doing a better job of summarizing a scientific paper than you did here.
Terry wrote:
they found it in New Mexico's Salado Formation, at a depth of 1700 feet.
###
Geno points out:
The Salado Formation is an evaporative salt deposit. It would be interesting if Terry would explain the formation of evaporative salts in the middle of a global flood then covering them with over 1000 feet of sediment.
###
Terry claims:
since the Global Flood
###
There was no global flood and the Salado Formation being composed of evaproative salts argues against its formation in a flood.
###
Terry claims:
In 2005, Mary Schweitzer ... found a fossil of Tyrannosaurus rex that contained ... live blood cells,
###
Geno points out:
There were no live blood cells. The last time I pointed this out, I simply said it was wrong. Now either Terry is lying or he's not doing due-diligance in his reporting.
###
Terry claims:
how could fresh meat survive for millions of years? The answer: it could not.
###
Geno comments;
Good thing because what Schwitzer fournd wasn't fresh meat unless one engages in the grossest of exagerations and misrepresentations.
###
Terry claims:
In fact, the deposition of all the fossil layers occurred in one year: the Flood year
###
Geno answers:
Right.... in one year we get a layer of evaporative salts hundreds of feet thick cpvered pver by a layer of sediment over a thousand feet thick.
NBC: One of the exciting things about this discovery, correct me if I'm wrong, is the fact that this stuff was fossilized as it was. At 70 million years old you don't expect to find soft tissue, do you?
Mary: Not at all. No. It's... It was utterly shocking.
NBC: So, you had to sort of rewrite the book as far as fossilation goes, I assume.
Mary: Well, that's the exciting part for me. I've always been intrigued by how, um, how things change in going from a living being to part of the rock record and, um, like I said, a lot of our science doesn't allow for this. All of the chemistry and all of the molecular breakdown experiments that we've done don't allow for this so if this material turns out to be actual remnants of the dinosaur then yes, I think that we will have to do some rethinking of the basics of the model of fossilization.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPTtjH0C_ec
Keep digging that hole, Hugene. With every shovel, you demonstrate you have no clue how science works and progresses.
So, if "all of the chemistry and all of the molecular breakdown experiments that we've done don't allow for this" and they are using the protein sequences found in this fossil as evidence for a dinosaur/bird connection because they believe it is actual remnants of the dinosaur" then why do they believe it is as old as they say it is when all the chemistry and all the experiments say otherwise? Certainly NOT because the empirical evidence says so but rather because their theory says so. It is quite obvious that the theory is more important than the actual evidence even when the theory fails to explain the evidence.
So, instead of drawing the obvious conclusion that this fossil is only a few thousand years old you are forced to just scratch your head and say, "I don't know"? You may choose to listen to the scientists when they say these fossils are millions of years old.
I choose to listen to the evidence which tells a very different story.
Nah, Hugene... I prefer to listen to the ROCKS. spend a little time in the field and out of Mommy's basement and you might actually learn something.
And what you either don't or wont' get is that you have it bassackwards: when the theory doesn't fit the evidence, it's time to rethink the theory - which is what Mary et al have been doing.
Hugenex.
I'm confused why you persevere?
there's two ways to look at this:
1. either
1.the scientifically-derived understanding about the decay of soft-tissue is innacurate
or
2. the scientifically-derived understanding about about the decay of soft-tissue is accurate.
If 1. then when conflicting information comes to light, the model is re-evalauted and corrected, in a way that is consistent with all other existing information. This is what mary says.
if 2. then the data are wrong.
I think this is pretty simple so far.
If we actually READ what Martin Anderson writes:
"So what were found were actually tiny fragments of protein once they had DISSOLVED THE ROCK."
then what mary said isinconsistent with later more detailed analysis.
So, I'm confused hugenex, what detail are you missing here exactly? it seems to be pretty straightforward to me.
Hugene claims:
" then why do they believe it is as old as they say it is when all the chemistry and all the experiments say otherwise?
#####
Geno answers:
Because:
1) There are at least 10 factors that influence biological decay rates but none that significantly change nuclear decay rates.
2) After a certain point, the condition of remains cannot be used to determine the time an organism died within 4 or 5 orders of magnitude.
3) The state of decay has never been used to establish the age of a fossilized biological sample in a controlled test. Tens of thousands of blind tests conducted over the last 60 years have established radiometric dating to be statistically reliable when properly used.
Hugene says:
So, instead of drawing the obvious conclusion that this fossil is only a few thousand years old
###
Geno:
Do you really expect to overturn a well established and tested dating technique because of an unexpected discovery?
###
Hugene:
you are forced to just scratch your head and say, "I don't know"?
####
Geno answers:
Yeah.... that's what scientists do when they find something unexpected. In fact, the words that lead to most great scientific discoveries are things like: "I don't know"; "I wonder why that happened"' or simply: "That's odd! ! !"
###
Hugene:
You may choose to listen to the scientists when they say these fossils are millions of years old. I choose to listen to the evidence which tells a very different story
###
Geno answers:
If you were listening to the evidence you'd be looking at a universe billions of years old, not thousands. Go outside on a clear night and observe the galaxy Andromeda.... there's your evidence.
---"It is quite obvious that the theory is more important than the actual evidence even when the theory fails to explain the evidence."
You're neglecting to mention that the evidence from EVERY SINGLE SCIENTIFIC FIELD points to an old Earth. You're also neglecting to mention that this find DEMONSTRATED a successful prediction made by evolution. You also neglected to mention that you did your best to not only just gloss over this fact, but also LIE about it, in an attempt to discredit a theory you don't understand because it doesn't gel with your religious beliefs (which you have also already previously admitted to).
---"I choose to listen to the evidence which tells a very different story."
No, you don't. You choose to misrepresent the evidence for the sake of your religious dogma. So how long can you keep digging, hugene? Stick to chess.
More scientific-sounding smoke and mirrors intended to discredit real science. Sigh...
Real science contradicts evolution.
How would you know, Hugene? We've already exposed the fact that you can barely spell 'real science' - and it's plain you have no clue what it actually is.
and where can we read this "real science" hugenex?
At the ICR, with their ~10 peer-reviewed publications, none of which actually present anything that supports creationism whatsoever?
Perhaps we should read online, unreviewed dogma?
Hugenex, what you regard as "real science" is simply science backwards - you necessarily make a blind assertion, then attempt to justify it.
You can do that of course, but it's not science.
I'm baffled, why do you keep insisting something that is NOT science, by definition, IS science?
It's like you're trying to convince us that black is white - you can of course, but you're simply not speaking the same language.
hugenex2000/Eugene, when you first started posting you used to make fairly relevant points. Certainly you would look at things from the perspective of trying to invalidate evolution but you were good at pointing out the grey areas. A few times I had to go back to the actual papers to back up the points I was making.
Then you changed. You stopped even looking at the science and started making blind assertions with no regard for whether what you were saying was true. Now I expect this from the wilfully stupid Hurlbut and Hale but I can only imagine that you are doing this out of a sense of cognitive dissonance where your appreciation of science is clashing with your religious beliefs.
Can I suggest that you have a look at what you are doing and why and stop making comments as insanely stupid as the one above, you are better than that.
---"Real science contradicts evolution."
Oh, that must be why every single creationist we encounter here, heck, in fact every single creationist on the planet has so far failed miserably to falsify it. Do you remember the "scientific alternative" you were forced to propose? Do I really need mention it again? Not to mention the fact that this is the third time now you've propogated a demonstrable lie in order to support your arguments. (Of course I'm being generous here given his disengenuousness in the past)
---"Then you changed. You stopped even looking at the science and started making blind assertions with no regard for whether what you were saying was true."
He finally realised it took far too much effort to argue against reality so he decided to blatantly lie about it. He is aware of his intended audience is and how gullible they are. And it's not us.
---"you are better than that."
No, he isn't. He's sold his soul for the sake of saving souls, and like a good little martyr he's sure his soul will be saved for that. Science? Who cares about science? This is about self-righteous Holy Righteousness ya know!
My comment was more in hope than expectation, Nick. It's just a pity to see someone who can at least understand enough science to make a coherent (if incorrect) argument about genetic sequences descend into the wilful ignorance, stupidity and outright lies of creationism.
The likes of Hurlbut and Hale are almost caricatures of creationists - repeating known falsehoods, misrepresenting people and positions and demanding overwhelming evidence for the scientific position while insisting their position is the truth despite there being zero evidence for it. Poe's law applies so strongly that sometimes I'm wondering if I'm just being trolled!
Having pinned Hugene down on his lies, I doubt he actually does understand enough science to make a coherent argument, Anderson. I think he was spoon-fed what science he brought - and once past that, he was way beyond his depth.
Thanks Terry, I enjoyed your article. It definitely made sense.
Which part? The lie about "evolutionary old Earth" or the lie about fresh T-Rex burger now available at Sammy's Burger Bar?
Judy,
It's been established and proven that terry's article is about 10 years too late, out of date, and rebutted about 5 years ago. So if you tink it makes sense, I suggest that you too update your information.
It's inteesting judy - you're choosing information to pin your creatinist hopes that were intitially completely speculative, and then later shown to e wrong. Terry brings the information to light, 10 years later, and fails to show the current research - lies to everyone, it's pointed out - repeatedly, and..
you still ignore it?
I simply want to know why, and how.
Judy wrote:
Thanks Terry, I enjoyed your article. It definitely made sense.
#####
Geno comments:
Making sense and being true are different things. If only his article were true......
Terry says dinosaurs are still alive. I wonder why he's so concerned about this finding. Wouldn't be easier to go catch one, Terry and y'all.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!